Iraq's Links To Al Qaeda, actual source info.

[MonkeyK]

Originally posted by: michaelpatrick33
Additionally, Bush has straight out in news conferences stated that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. Why would he make such a statement if he believed Saddam had any link to Al Quaeda? Answer me this.

news footage in question

Ah, reasoning skills worthy of the OP. I will summarize your argument:
Saddam --> AQ
AQ --> 9/11
Therefore: Saddam --> 9/11

However, since Bush said Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 (although he and his admin were constantly mentioning the two in the same breath), it must mean that he also felt that Saddam had no link to AQ.

The flaw is both a logical and psychological one. The logical flaw is that "link to" is not the same thing as "equals" or even the same thing as "implies". The psychological flaw is that --even if you assume that the above was a logical argument-- the President does not count on logic to make his points.

 

[laFiera]

The Bush administration's efforts to build a case for war against Iraq using intelligence to link it to Al Qaeda and the development of prohibited weapons has created friction within United States intelligence agencies, government officials said. Some analysts at the Central Intelligence Agency have complained that senior administration officials have exaggerated the significance of some intelligence reports about Iraq, particularly about its possible links to terrorism, in order to strengthen their political argument for war, government officials said.

At the Federal Bureau of Investigation, some investigators said they were baffled by the Bush administration's insistence on a solid link between Iraq and Osama bin Laden's network. "We've been looking at this hard for more than a year and you know what, we just don't think it's there," a government official said. The tension within the intelligence agencies comes as Secretary of State Colin L. Powell is poised to go before the United Nations Security Council on Wednesday to present evidence of Iraq's links to terrorism and its continuing efforts to develop chemical, biological and nuclear weapons and long-range missiles.

Neither George J. Tenet, the director of central intelligence, nor the F.B.I. director, Robert S. Mueller III, have publicly engaged in the debate about the evidence on Iraq in recent weeks, even as the Bush administration has intensified its efforts to build the case for a possible war. The last time Mr. Tenet found himself at the center of the public debate over intelligence concerning Iraq was in October, when the Senate declassified a brief letter Mr. Tenet wrote describing some of the C.I.A.'s assessments about Iraq.

His letter stated that the C.I.A. believed that Iraq had, for the time being, probably decided not to conduct terrorist attacks with conventional or chemical or biological weapons against the United States, but the letter added that Mr. Hussein might resort to terrorism if he believed that an American-led attack was about to begin.

full text

by the way....why did rumsfeld pay Saddam a visit in the early 80's? And even after Sadam had used weapons on Iran back then, why the usa didn't consider Saddam to be a threat ?


.....the State Department briefed the press on its decision to strengthen controls on the export of chemical weapons precursors to Iran and Iraq, in response to intelligence and media reports that precursors supplied to Iraq originated in Western countries. When asked whether the U.S.'s conclusion that Iraq had used chemical weapons would have "any effect on U.S. recent initiatives to expand commercial relationships with Iraq across a broad range, and also a willingness to open diplomatic relations," the department's spokesperson said "No. I'm not aware of any change in our position. We're interested in being involved in a closer dialogue with Iraq"

 

[imported_michaelpatrick33]

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: michaelpatrick33
Additionally, Bush has straight out in news conferences stated that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. Why would he make such a statement if he believed Saddam had any link to Al Quaeda? Answer me this.

news footage in question

Ah, reasoning skills worthy of the OP. I will summarize your argument:
Saddam --> AQ
AQ --> 9/11
Therefore: Saddam --> 9/11

However, since Bush said Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 (although he and his admin were constantly mentioning the two in the same breath), it must mean that he also felt that Saddam had no link to AQ.

The flaw is both a logical and psychological one. The logical flaw is that "link to" is not the same thing as "equals" or even the same thing as "implies". The psychological flaw is that --even if you assume that the above was a logical argument-- the President does not count on logic to make his points.

Your attack on my logical skills notwithstanding what is your point? I never stated that Saddam had no links to Al Quaeda but was merely questioning the OP in an attempt to further understand his viewpoint and clarify my own (but my viewing of intelligence and 9/11 commission report indicates none existed other than some perfunctory low level ones that have not demonstrated any real collaboration). I personally find it humorous that Bush is trying equate Saddam and Al Queada by mentioning them in the same breath as, you point out, but is careful to state Saddam (linked to Al Queada) had nothing to do with 9/11 which in my eyes is dissembling because if any connection or ties at all could be shown than he wouldn't be careful to differentiate Saddam and 9/11.

In other words, if there were any ties to Al Queada from Saddam, Bush would not be carefully separating 9/11 into Saddam (not involved) and Al Queada. He would state that Saddam was part of the Al Queada network that attacked America on 9/11. He doesn't state that; he states 9/11 and Saddam have nothing to do with each other. That is a powerful implied statement politically that Saddam may be mentioned in the same breath as Al Queada but in fact they are not linked other than by breath.

By the way your reading skills (and context analysis need to be honed). How is that for a personal jab while attempting to clarify an argument :roll:

 

[MonkeyK]

Originally posted by: michaelpatrick33

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: michaelpatrick33
Additionally, Bush has straight out in news conferences stated that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. Why would he make such a statement if he believed Saddam had any link to Al Quaeda? Answer me this.

news footage in question

Ah, reasoning skills worthy of the OP. I will summarize your argument:
Saddam --> AQ
AQ --> 9/11
Therefore: Saddam --> 9/11

However, since Bush said Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 (although he and his admin were constantly mentioning the two in the same breath), it must mean that he also felt that Saddam had no link to AQ.

The flaw is both a logical and psychological one. The logical flaw is that "link to" is not the same thing as "equals" or even the same thing as "implies". The psychological flaw is that --even if you assume that the above was a logical argument-- the President does not count on logic to make his points.

Your attack on my logical skills notwithstanding what is your point? I never stated that Saddam had no links to Al Quaeda but was merely questioning the OP in an attempt to further understand his viewpoint and clarify my own (but my viewing of intelligence and 9/11 commission report indicates none existed other than some perfunctory low level ones that have not demonstrated any real collaboration). I personally find it humorous that Bush is trying equate Saddam and Al Queada by mentioning them in the same breath as, you point out, but is careful to state Saddam (linked to Al Queada) had nothing to do with 9/11 which in my eyes is dissembling because if any connection or ties at all could be shown than he wouldn't be careful to differentiate Saddam and 9/11.

In other words, if there were any ties to Al Queada from Saddam, Bush would not be carefully separating 9/11 into Saddam (not involved) and Al Queada. He would state that Saddam was part of the Al Queada network that attacked America on 9/11. He doesn't state that; he states 9/11 and Saddam have nothing to do with each other. That is a powerful implied statement politically that Saddam may be mentioned in the same breath as Al Queada but in fact they are not linked other than by breath.

By the way your reading skills (and context analysis need to be honed). How is that for a personal jab while attempting to clarify an argument :roll:

Again, a link to AQ does not make a link to 9/11. You cannot infer from Bush saying Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 that he does not think there is a link to AQ. Doesn't matter how careful he is about it.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: laFiera
by the way....why did rumsfeld pay Saddam a visit in the early 80's? And even after Sadam had used weapons on Iran back then, why the usa didn't consider Saddam to be a threat ?"

For the same reason that Roosevelt meet with Stalin in 1944.
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend."
We saw Iran as a threat, which they certainly were after holding Americans hostage for 400+ days. Iraq was at war with Iran. Therefore we saw Iraq as a way to balance the threat that Iran posed.
That was the same reason we back Osama and friends in their battle against Russia in Afghanistan, they were fighting a war we could not fight so we helped them.
You may not like it, but it is very sound geo-political policy. Unless you think we should have invaded Iran in the 80s or attack Russia after it invaded Afghanistan.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: umbrella39
FlufJohn, you marginalize yourself every time you state that Bush and ANYONE for that matter with a brain, thought that Iraq really had ties to 9/11 in 2002. They were banging the drums for months which is not something you have to do if you really believe the bullsh!t you are trying to peddle on the Sheeple.

As stated in several threads now, grow up and ship out.

Where did I state that Iraq had ties to 9-11????? I have never said anything at all like that. Stop telling lies about me and what I have said.

 

[ProfJohn]

Ok, for one last time I will try to explain my post and my reasoning.
Perhaps if you stopped spending all your time attacking me personally and read what I actually said you might get a better understand of my point of view.

The Washington Post article states:

Although President Bush and other senior administration officials were at that time regularly linking Hussein to al-Qaeda,

In an attempt to back up that claim they post a quote by Bush.

"Al-Qaeda hides. Saddam doesn't, but the danger is, is that they work in concert. The danger is, is that al-Qaeda becomes an extension of Saddam's madness and his hatred and his capacity to extend weapons of mass destruction around the world. . . . [Y]ou can't distinguish between al-Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror."

However, if you read the entire quote and look at it in context you will see that they are misrepresenting what Bush actually said. Bush does not "link" Hussein and al-Qaeda, he is saying that they are both a threat.

They're both risks, they're both dangerous. The difference, of course, is that al Qaeda likes to hijack governments. Saddam Hussein is a dictator of a government. Al Qaeda hides, Saddam doesn't, but the danger is, is that they work in concert. The danger is, is that al Qaeda becomes an extension of Saddam's madness and his hatred and his capacity to extend weapons of mass destruction around the world. Both of them need to be dealt with. The war on terror, you can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror. And so it's a comparison that is ? I can't make because I can't distinguish between the two, because they're both equally as bad, and equally as evil, and equally as destructive."

Notice the last line "I can't distinguish between the two" he is not saying they are one and the same, he is saying that they are equally threatening.

Finally, do yourself a favor and read the actual Joint Resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq. There is NO mention of al-Qaeda in the entire thing, except the line "Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq" Well that line in 100% true, they were there, no one doubts that.
If one is to believe what you are saying then not only did Bush fool the entire country in to believe that al-Qeada and Suddam were linked, but he also fooled everyone in congress who voted for the "war"

Joint Resolution
Here is every part of the resolution that mentions terrorism:

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq; Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

 

[ProfJohn]

BTW: In case you forgot.
We did not invade Iraq because it had something to do with 9-11.
We invaded Iraq because of its past ties with terrorism and the thought that in a post 9-11 world we could not allow a regime with a track record of supporting terrorism and using chemical weapons to exist.

If you don't believe me then find and post a quote that has Bush saying that Saddam or Iraq had a direct part in the 9-11 attacks. I am pretty sure no such quote is out there, or else it would be all over the news.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: conjur
Watch PBS Frontline's 'Dark Side' and you'll see how Tenet fell victim to the pressure from the WH and fell into "groupthink"

As for the linking of Saddam to Al Qaeda, the power of suggestion from the catapaulted propaganda worked according to plan:

?Uncovering the Rationales for the War on Iraq:
The Words of the Bush Administration, Congress, and the Media
from September 12, 2001 to October 11, 2002?
http://www.pol.uiuc.edu/news/largio.htm

conjur... you posted a link to someones senior honor thesis? Is this a joke, or are we suppose to take this 22 year old soon to be college grad as an expert on world events?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: conjur
Watch PBS Frontline's 'Dark Side' and you'll see how Tenet fell victim to the pressure from the WH and fell into "groupthink"

As for the linking of Saddam to Al Qaeda, the power of suggestion from the catapaulted propaganda worked according to plan:

?Uncovering the Rationales for the War on Iraq:
The Words of the Bush Administration, Congress, and the Media
from September 12, 2001 to October 11, 2002?
http://www.pol.uiuc.edu/news/largio.htm

conjur... you posted a link to someones senior honor thesis? Is this a joke, or are we suppose to take this 22 year old soon to be college grad as an expert on world events?

Yet again the "Prof" dismisses an article on its face.

How about you try and actually READ the article. I know it's probably way over your head but give it the ol' college try, eh?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
BTW: In case you forgot.
We did not invade Iraq because it had something to do with 9-11.
We invaded Iraq because of its past ties with terrorism and the thought that in a post 9-11 world we could not allow a regime with a track record of supporting terrorism and using chemical weapons to exist.

If you don't believe me then find and post a quote that has Bush saying that Saddam or Iraq had a direct part in the 9-11 attacks. I am pretty sure no such quote is out there, or else it would be all over the news.

How about this? I'll concede it's not from a reputable source, and one can certainly parse the wording "just so" (what is "is"?) to claim that the clear and obvious implication of the words isn't really, exactly, technically what he said, but any reasonable person (i.e., not a Bush apologist) reading it can see that GWB was unquestionably trying to conflate Iraq and the 9/11 attacks.

Presidential Letter

March 18, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President: )

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH

 

[umbrella39]

Bow, he is very obtuse it would seem. Thanks for the quote but I fear it will fall of deaf ears with the Prof. The force is too strong with this one.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: umbrella39
Bow, he is very obtuse it would seem. Thanks for the quote but I fear it will fall of deaf ears with the Prof. The force is too strong with this one.

umbrella... I am your father, join me and we can over throw the emperor and rule the galaxy together.

Bowfinger, if you go reread my post you will see that exact line in the Joint Resolution:
"Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations; "
The Joint Resolution that authorized force was passed in October of 2002, the letter was dated March 2003. The letter is just Bush telling congress that he is pursuing the use of force as laid out in the Joint Resolution, and quoting back to them specific parts of its text.
I think it was pretty well accepted at that time that Iraq had aided terrorists and was harboring terrorists as well. And it was thought that Iraq had ties to al-Qaeda as well, so I don?t think it was much of a stretch to think that Iraq was or had aided al-Qaeda at one point. Whether or not Iraq helped al-Qaeda carry out or plan for 9-11 does not matter, the fact that they helped al-Qaeda at any time in the past is enough to fulfill the statement ?those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist?

Think of it this way. If I give a gun to a criminal and he goes out and kills someone, I can still be arrested and charged with aiding in the crime, even though I had nothing to do with the killing and was sitting at home watching TV when it happened. The fact that I aided the criminal at any time, knowing he was as criminal, makes me complicit in the crime he committed.

BTW: Is this the best you can do? You are so sure that the President linked Iraq and 9-11 and used it as a reason for our invasion, but you can?t find one quote from Bush where he says anything like that? You disappoint me.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: conjur
Watch PBS Frontline's 'Dark Side' and you'll see how Tenet fell victim to the pressure from the WH and fell into "groupthink"

As for the linking of Saddam to Al Qaeda, the power of suggestion from the catapaulted propaganda worked according to plan:

?Uncovering the Rationales for the War on Iraq:
The Words of the Bush Administration, Congress, and the Media
from September 12, 2001 to October 11, 2002?
http://www.pol.uiuc.edu/news/largio.htm

conjur... you posted a link to someones senior honor thesis? Is this a joke, or are we suppose to take this 22 year old soon to be college grad as an expert on world events?

Yet again the "Prof" dismisses an article on its face.

How about you try and actually READ the article. I know it's probably way over your head but give it the ol' college try, eh?

I actually read a good deal of it after I made that post. It is interesting. The writer lists 5 main reasons for going to war and several secondary ones, the Iraq al-Qaeda link was a secondary. I did not read it enough to see the actual lines used be anyone in making that link though. I also do not think he mentions "Iraq had something to do with 9-11" as a reason either.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
And it was thought that Iraq had ties to al-Qaeda as well, so I don?t think it was much of a stretch to think that Iraq was or had aided al-Qaeda at one point. Whether or not Iraq helped al-Qaeda carry out or plan for 9-11 does not matter, the fact that they helped al-Qaeda at any time in the past is enough to fulfill the statement ?those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist?

Yes it is a stretch because we had no evidence of any such thing happening. Our intel concerning Iraq was SO bad at the time that our chief weapons inspector admitted that "we were almost all wrong" when it came to our suspicions of WMDs in Iraq.

Originally posted by: ProfJohnThink of it this way. If I give a gun to a criminal and he goes out and kills someone, I can still be arrested and charged with aiding in the crime, even though I had nothing to do with the killing and was sitting at home watching TV when it happened. The fact that I aided the criminal at any time, knowing he was as criminal, makes me complicit in the crime he committed.

And yet that never happened. Iraq never gave a weapon to a terrorist in order to attack America. Never happened = bad analogy.

Originally posted by: ProfJohnBTW: Is this the best you can do? You are so sure that the President linked Iraq and 9-11 and used it as a reason for our invasion, but you can?t find one quote from Bush where he says anything like that? You disappoint me.

You obviously have a short memory and do not remember the constant connecting of 9/11 and Iraq by the entire administration for a good 6+ months leading up to the war.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
[BTW: Is this the best you can do? You are so sure that the President linked Iraq and 9-11 and used it as a reason for our invasion, but you can?t find one quote from Bush where he says anything like that? You disappoint me.

Allow me to quote again from Bush's message to Congress posted above by Bowfinger:

Presidential Letter

March 18, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President: )

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:
.
.
.
(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH

Do you really mean that's not enough of an attempt to link Saddam and 9-22 for you? :roll:

It's pretty obvious, either you haven't been paying attention, or you're so hell bent on your own self deception that you missed the little duck and cover game the Bushwhackos have been running. They've repeatedly sent Cheney and others out to high profile press contacts to pick and parse their words with the strongest connections between Saddam and Al Qaeda they can deliver. Then, when cornered by the press, Bush tries to duck away from confirming that anyone made any direct connection between the two. If you take all of their statements in context, and you read exactly what Bush denies, he never disavows the connection. He just tries to redefine the question in terms that leave the implied connection intact without addressing the meaning of the exact words he chooses to redefine or ignore.

On September 14, 2003, on Meet The Press, two years after 9-22, Tim Russert interviewed Cheney. On that show, Cheney said:

This is not just about Iraq or just about the difficulties we might encounter in any one part of the country in terms of restoring security and stability. This is about a continuing operation on the war on terror. And it?s very, very important we get it right. If we?re successful in Iraq, if we can stand up a good representative government in Iraq, that secures the region so that it never again becomes a threat to its neighbors or to the United States, so it?s not pursuing weapons of mass destruction, so that it?s not a safe haven for terrorists, now we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11

On June 17, 2004, CNN reported on the upcoming hearings by the 9-11 Commission:

9/11 panel: Al Qaeda planned to hijack 10 planes
Commissioner: Myths will be dispelled in Thursday hearing

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- One member of the commission investigating the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks says "a number of urban myths about 9/11" will be dispelled on Thursday, the last scheduled hearing for the panel.
.
.
The Bush administration has said the terrorist network and Iraq were linked.

In response, a senior administration official traveling with President Bush in Tampa, Florida, said, "We stand by what Powell and Tenet have said," referring to previous statements by Secretary of State Colin Powell and CIA Director George Tenet that described such links.

In February 2003, Secretary of State Colin Powell told the United Nations that Iraq was harboring Abu Musab Zarqawi, a "collaborator of Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda lieutenants," and he said Iraq's denials of ties to al Qaeda "are simply not credible."

In September, Cheney said Iraq had been "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."

Bush, responding to criticism of Cheney's comment, said there was no evidence Saddam's government was linked to the September 11 attacks.

I'm sorry you didn't listen when your mother warned you that, if you didn't stop it, you'd go blind. :shocked:

Here, little boy...

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
[ ... ]
Bowfinger, if you go reread my post you will see that exact line in the Joint Resolution:
"Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations; "
The Joint Resolution that authorized force was passed in October of 2002, the letter was dated March 2003. The letter is just Bush telling congress that he is pursuing the use of force as laid out in the Joint Resolution, and quoting back to them specific parts of its text.

No kidding!?! Any other great flashes of insight Captain Obvious (or should I say Professor Obvious)?

Of course the wording is the same. Both documents were written by the White House. In both cases -- and hundreds of others -- the Bush administration deliberately tried to insinuate a connection between Iraq and 9/11. I use the Bush letter to illustrate this simply because the misdirection is so clear and inarguable, the source cannot be mindlessly dismissed, and the letter was "signed" by GWB himself.

I'll also point out that out of the many clauses and conditions laid out in the Resolution, that is one of only two BushCo parroted back to Congress in his letter. It seems obvious that the alleged connection was something he wanted to stress.

I think it was pretty well accepted at that time that Iraq had aided terrorists and was harboring terrorists as well. And it was thought that Iraq had ties to al-Qaeda as well, so I don?t think it was much of a stretch to think that Iraq was or had aided al-Qaeda at one point. Whether or not Iraq helped al-Qaeda carry out or plan for 9-11 does not matter, the fact that they helped al-Qaeda at any time in the past is enough to fulfill the statement ?those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist?

Sorry, more disdirection. You've altered the quote in a subtle, yet significant way, materially changing its meaning. The quote is NOT "nations ... who aided the terrorists." It is "nations ... who aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001." That's all the difference in the world, rendering your entire argument above a red herring.

[ ... ] BTW: Is this the best you can do? You are so sure that the President linked Iraq and 9-11 and used it as a reason for our invasion, but you can?t find one quote from Bush where he says anything like that? You disappoint me.

Yawn. "Where he says anything like that?" Step away from the Kool-Aid. The words are clear, and they are directly from GWB. That you refuse to see them is your problem.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: umbrella39
Bow, he is very obtuse it would seem. Thanks for the quote but I fear it will fall of deaf ears with the Prof. The force is too strong with this one.

Obtuse? I think his duhversions are willful and calculated. It's all about distracting from legitimate concerns and criticisms with a screen of smoke and mirrors, the same tactic we've seen for the last three years.

 

[Narmer]

I can't believe the sh!t ProfJohn is trying to feed us. All these nuances about what he said, didn't say, implied, didn't imply sound like they belong in an impeachment hearing, which is what Bush deserves.

If Bush wanted a stronger link between Al Qaeda and a government, he didn't have to look any further than Pakistan or Saudi Arabia. But those were his allies.

ProfJohn, begone with this horsesh!t you claim proves media bias.

EDIT: Even if Bush pulled the other Clintonite scheme, people actually died. Tens of thousands actually. For that, and for knowingly misleading the American public and abusing the spirit of the law, Bush should be found guilty of treason.